starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Installation assumes stock umask #5941

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:34:32 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:34:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @joubbi on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.1.5

Python version

3.9

Steps to Reproduce

It is quite common to change the default umask on a system to something that restricts file permissions for "other".
This is for example a part of CIS hardening "Ensure default user umask is 027 or more restrictive".
The installation of Netbox fails if "other" is not able to read the files.

In my opinion the persmissions and users set by Netbox should be set in a way that works with umask 027.
If this is not possbile for some reason the upgrade script should fail with an explanation if the umask is set in a too restrictive way.
Also the installation instructions should have a section in the beginning to check the umask.

  1. Set umask to 0027.
  2. Follow the installation insructions.

Expected Behavior

The installation should succeed, or possibly fail with an error message in an earlier stage encouraging the user to change the umask.

Observed Behavior

The installation fails when trying to start the service with sudo systemctl start netbox netbox-rq.
The explanation for the failure can be seen in /var/log/messages -> Permision denied.

Originally created by @joubbi on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.1.5 ### Python version 3.9 ### Steps to Reproduce It is quite common to change the default umask on a system to something that restricts file permissions for "other". This is for example a part of CIS hardening "Ensure default user umask is 027 or more restrictive". The installation of Netbox fails if "other" is not able to read the files. In my opinion the persmissions and users set by Netbox should be set in a way that works with umask 027. If this is not possbile for some reason the upgrade script should fail with an explanation if the umask is set in a too restrictive way. Also the installation instructions should have a section in the beginning to check the umask. 1. Set umask to 0027. 2. Follow the installation insructions. ### Expected Behavior The installation should succeed, or possibly fail with an error message in an earlier stage encouraging the user to change the umask. ### Observed Behavior The installation fails when trying to start the service with `sudo systemctl start netbox netbox-rq`. The explanation for the failure can be seen in `/var/log/messages` -> Permision denied.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:34:32 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:34:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022):

The installation instructions assumes stock everything, because we couldn't possibly account for all potential modifications that may have been made to a system. This ensures a consistent experience and reduces the burden of maintaining the installation documentation. The installer is presumed to be aware of any modifications that have been made to the system on which NetBox is being installed and account for them appropriately.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022): The installation instructions assumes stock _everything_, because we couldn't possibly account for all potential modifications that may have been made to a system. This ensures a consistent experience and reduces the burden of maintaining the installation documentation. The installer is presumed to be aware of any modifications that have been made to the system on which NetBox is being installed and account for them appropriately.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:34:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joubbi commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022):

The way it is now leaves the installer in the dark.
The instructions don't mention that the file permissions for other are used.
When it fails, it's not clear why it fails.

I can imagine several others spending time troubleshooting this same issue.

@joubbi commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2022): The way it is now leaves the installer in the dark. The instructions don't mention that the file permissions for other are used. When it fails, it's not clear why it fails. I can imagine several others spending time troubleshooting this same issue.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#5941
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?